|
This information provided by The Federal Observer, http://www.federalobserver.com Cee: The Next Round In Gun Control
By Hero Cee
Gun
control advocates are being vocal in Australia again. It must be that
time of the year. A recent report by the University of Maryland and the
Australian Institute of Criminology states that the 1996 Gun Buy Back
was a success. This backlash move was prompted by the 1996 Port Arthur
massacre. Here is where the 'facts' - as reported in the mainstream
media - become a little hazy. For example, The Australian
newspaper ran an editorial on Monday October 7, 2002 in which it
stated, "Most voters supported the $320 million outlay and seek nothing
less than the strongest gun laws available." It goes on to say that,
"While 643,000-plus guns were relinquished during the buyback of
1996-97, many of these were not the most dangerous types." Australians
are being duped into thinking that the buyback was a good thing because
(a) it made Australia a safe place; and (b) the buyback didn't cost
much anyway. Let's step back and look at the math. During the buyback,
those sporting shooters and farmers who surrendered their guns were
paid full current value for their guns. No one quibbled about the price
the government paid them, as the prices were more than fair market
value. The simple math is that 643,000 into $320 million works out at
an average of $AUS 498 per gun. In American terms about $US 250. What
crap! Guns vary in price, like cars. You can get a cheapie or you can
pay a fortune. But you cannot get a decent gun for $498. (I'll use
Australian dollars from now on.) Reasonably good second-hand guns go
for between $600 and $1200. This doesn't begin to consider the race
guns and high-powered rifles and shotguns worth around $2,000, each
which were surrendered. Even in 1996, anything costing less than $500
was a bottom of the line old piece that probably didn't even work. Why
are the spin-doctors saying the buyback cost $320 million when the true
figure was in excess of $500 million? Why are they saying that
Australia is a safer place? The report rests its criteria for success
on the fact that, since 1996, there have been no gun mass murders in
Australia. Whoopee! Tell this wonderful news to the families of the 13
victims of the June 2000 Childers Backpacker Hostel fire. The convicted
murderer used a match to kill his prey. Or the 10 victims of the
so-called "bodies in the barrels murders." These unfortunates were
bashed, bludgeoned, and tortured. But they were not shot. So all is
well. 13 dead by murder is not mass murder unless a gun is involved. I
wonder if it makes any difference to the victims. The point is
that the media are again in a frenzy about guns. The buzz is out that
guns are bad and must be banned, totally. Okay, I'll agree to this
happily if the government will be consistent in their zeal to make
Australia a safer place. Last week one idiot 20 year-old driver killed
himself and five others by driving his car at excessive speed on a
dark, windy road. Every weekend, the news is the same. Young male
drivers under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol kill dozens of
innocent Australians. Each week. Imagine the uproar if their were a gun
massacre each week. There has not been one gun massacre since April
1996, yet idiots create greater death tolls each week. The government
focuses on the gun as the source of danger. Okay then, what about the
car? Why not a total ban on cars, then? Clearly Australia will be a
safer place. Oh, you say that it is not the car, which is at fault, but
the driver? There are many responsible drivers. Hmm, then why is it the shooter who is at fault instead of the gun? There are 200,0001
responsible shooters in Australia. I am two thousand2 times more likely
to die at the hands of a reckless driver than a rogue shooter. Why
am I not surprised that this is all happening in Australia at the same
time as there is a rogue sniper on the loose in America? Perhaps I'm
just paranoid, but I sense a connection.
1 The number of licensed shooters in Australia is about 800,000, not 200,000.
2 Make that eight thousand. Source: Babel Magazine |
